CCFC take up 2 year extension at Ricoh (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter AFCCOVENTRY
- Start date
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Les Reid said it was supposed to be last summer. I presumed he was briefed correctly by someone in the know.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say it means another pointless two years, this deal was already in place, and I honestly don't believe wasps would have agreed anywhere near as favourable terms on a new 10 year deal. If I was wasps I wouldn't.
After 2 years I really can't see us agreeing anything more than a 10 year deal at most, we certainly won't be paying £17-20m to buy half of ACL.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
stupot07
Well-Known Member
How are we going to get into the PL when we have one of the lowest revenues in the championship and don't have an owner willing to throw in £13-15m pa to fund a promotion squad, in order to get the new owners you mention who then might try to buy the Ricoh of wasps?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Moff
Well-Known Member
Telegraph or Observer, Gilbert or Reid. They all spout BS just from a different angle, and if you think its just Reid you are burying your head in the sand.
I don't think that it is just Reid. I have never claimed that ( in my post I mentioned CT suppressing stories). Just think this story, and him twisting it around to say that his exclusive was confirmed, is particularly cheeky. Read the headline and story from the "butts exclusive" and then the latest article. I think it is blatant BS. Grendel claiming I said it was worse than the CT, and you suggesting that I am burying my head in the sand, show your respective automatic defence of any suggestion of "wrongdoing" by certain parties. Why invent things or suggest things without evidence to support your viewpoint?
Moff
Well-Known Member
Allright Mr Conspiracy, calm yourself.
I think based on your posting that you seem to attack Reid with regularity, but not the Telegraph. They all spout bull, and seem to be in a constant battle for one upmanship. It is shit for the public, and does the club and fans no good.
Its interesting you say my suggestion that you had your head in the sand is me showing an automatic defence of any suggestion of wrongdoing by certain parties, when I state that they all bullshit and are as bad as each other.
Perhaps you should reread my post as it seems I have slagged them both off, and I cant see any defence of anyone, so perhaps you could point it out.....or not.
Had I slagged off Gilbert would you have jumped on my post? I do not attack Reid regularly - but I do because of this story. You could have stated they are all bullshit and left me out of it, but no, you had to have a dig as I had criticised Reid. That was the automatic reaction. Unnecessary as I had criticised the CT about suppression of stories.
Moff
Well-Known Member
Yes I would have said the same if you slagged off Gilbert. Reid is shit as well. To be fair to Simon, I have had a laugh with him on the site, and he has been more accesible than Mr Reid.
Posting on this site leaves you, me and everyone else open to debate and criticism. It was that, but not a dig, and I am sorry you thought it was. I thought it was disagreement as part of a debate. We both have more important things to do than squabble for the sake of it.
At the end of the day I stated a point, and you have answered it. You have slagged off both, I have slagged off both. We are still CCFC fans, and we both hope that one day we will wake up from the nightmare of divison one and our constant stream of crap useless owners.
I agree with you - nicht problem. As regards Simon, you could at least tell him what you thought. He took some Stick at times.
I think we are moving in the right direction to get our of this league. Anderson and Mowbray are good appointments tbf to the owners.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say it means another pointless two years, this deal was already in place, and I honestly don't believe wasps would have agreed anywhere near as favourable terms on a new 10 year deal. If I was wasps I wouldn't.
After 2 years I really can't see us agreeing anything more than a 10 year deal at most, we certainly won't be paying £17-20m to buy half of ACL.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Sounds like we may pay twice that figure them for a stadium that is unlikely to generate as much revenue? If you believe building a stadium is financially viable.
Although I agree a ten year deal maybe more suitable not sure what the terms of it would be though and the benefit of that for either party
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Makes sense, it would have bee the easiest option to move forward with. All is does really is punt the issue 2 years down the line. It was only ever going to be a problem if Wasps exercised their option to kick us out.
Would be interesting to know the FL view on this. We all know they are pretty useless but even they must have demanded to see evidence of something happening by now. So have they seen something that has given them enough confidence to not enforce the 10 year rule?
Would be interesting to know the FL view on this. We all know they are pretty useless but even they must have demanded to see evidence of something happening by now. So have they seen something that has given them enough confidence to not enforce the 10 year rule?
The Lurker
Well-Known Member
Who has admitted it will be nameless? And where does it say it's finished?
The Lurker
Well-Known Member
Think you need new specs and to go back to school.
Calista
Well-Known Member
Makes sense, it would have bee the easiest option to move forward with. All is does really is punt the issue 2 years down the line. It was only ever going to be a problem if Wasps exercised their option to kick us out.
Would be interesting to know the FL view on this. We all know they are pretty useless but even they must have demanded to see evidence of something happening by now. So have they seen something that has given them enough confidence to not enforce the 10 year rule?[/QUOTE]
An interesting question, I'd forgotten about that. Or maybe they are just tired of the whole thing and are happy to park it for another couple of years.
btw CD - did you post this at 4am, or are you sipping cocktails on the beach in the Seychelles
Otis
Well-Known Member
Better off than me then. I'm scooping poo from a parrot's tail with seashells.Makes sense, it would have bee the easiest option to move forward with. All is does really is punt the issue 2 years down the line. It was only ever going to be a problem if Wasps exercised their option to kick us out.
Would be interesting to know the FL view on this. We all know they are pretty useless but even they must have demanded to see evidence of something happening by now. So have they seen something that has given them enough confidence to not enforce the 10 year rule?[/QUOTE]
An interesting question, I'd forgotten about that. Or maybe they are just tired of the whole thing and are happy to park it for another couple of years.
btw CD - did you post this at 4am, or are you sipping cocktails on the beach in the Seychelles
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah alright. Les continually posts bullshit and gets sacked from his job for being too close to the story and you're all up his arse. Gilbert can't post a match report about us losing without you breaking out the tinfoil hat.
I think your credibility when it comes to assessing the media is pretty shot.
Hey I hear the Independent have an article about Madders leaving, let's hear your conspiracy theory there. Maybe Lebedev is having an affair with Ann Lucas?
Fucking joker.
Nick
Administrator
Simon doesn't post match reports
Didn't reid get a pay out settlement for it after he quit?
I'd say the local media is pretty shot.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
We know that ACL was just treading water when we were paying £1.2m rent, I can't see how wasps are going to be paying £2m interest a year on their bonds and make this financially viable, especially with us only giving them £100k. I suspect they are banking on a decent sponsorship rights deal and if one isn't forthcoming then they may hit troubles.
The sands can shift a fair amount over 2 years, this deal allows us time to come up with alternatives but also pursue the judicial review and see if wasps financial position becomes more unstable. If they have been here for 3 years and are losing money hand over fist and are unable to attract investors they may cut their losses and buzz back to where they should be playing anyway
The sands can shift a fair amount over 2 years, this deal allows us time to come up with alternatives but also pursue the judicial review and see if wasps financial position becomes more unstable. If they have been here for 3 years and are losing money hand over fist and are unable to attract investors they may cut their losses and buzz back to where they should be playing anyway
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I think the sponsor (LR) will come in pretty quick now and the stadium name will change (LRS) in the new year.
No worse advertising than CCFC leaving in the summer for a stadium sponsor.
The 2 year deal will allow the legals to get out the way and we can then start from a known position.
Well done Sisu and Wasps :claping hands:
No worse advertising than CCFC leaving in the summer for a stadium sponsor.
The 2 year deal will allow the legals to get out the way and we can then start from a known position.
Well done Sisu and Wasps :claping hands:
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
So, what about the revelations in the Council papers regarding the conduct of Mutton and Lucas. The CT supressing stories and cosying up to the council helping them out with their PR campaign against the club?
Are you deliberating ignoring that? Fucking joker is right.
Are you deliberating ignoring that? Fucking joker is right.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
They will always get a sponsor, the question would be 'how much'.
As I said the delay on the CCFC deal would have a negative effect on any potential sponsorship deal.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Could have said the same on the original CCFC/ACL deal. 'Only 50 years to go' and we know what happened to that.
Otis
Well-Known Member
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
True, Italia. Fingers crossed that the cuckoos flee the nest sooner rather than later.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
so.............
We are exactly where we all thought we would be. Other than some ink on a document nothing has changed. We are playing at the Ricoh and no alternative site has been secured, and it would seem that there are no serious detailed negotiations going on either at the BPA or any other site. The terms are the same and that still creates the same issues especially if we get promoted
The FL are happy because whilst CCFC are playing at the Ricoh (it still has that name on it), in Coventry, then they can exercise their discretion on any 10 year rule. Sensible really given that relationships might be built over next couple of years
There have been "talks" at BPA but no one is close to making an agreement despite what I think were misleading headlines in both local newspapers. Over the last 3 years there seems to have been lots of talks that led to nothing but got everyone's hopes up, on the odd occasion anything was reported. There is no deal, or anything close to one at the BPA as it stands. CRFC nor its chairman don't even own the all the land or lease yet!
Sponsors for the stadium name are being discussed apparently, whilst a successful CCFC have an effect on that is CCFC signing a 2 year deal key to what could be a 10 year commitment by said sponsor? Or are we at a step to something else?
Still petty squabbles in the local rags - both of which pride themselves on getting the facts right and yet repeatedly make mistakes. Sorry but am tired of the one-upmanship going on
I actually like the calm level headed approach of Mr Andersen, bit wordy at times but hey who am I to talk. He now has time to get the decision right
Situation normal ............ I suggest we concentrate on the things we can have more faith in ....... TM and his team
Just my opinion of course
We are exactly where we all thought we would be. Other than some ink on a document nothing has changed. We are playing at the Ricoh and no alternative site has been secured, and it would seem that there are no serious detailed negotiations going on either at the BPA or any other site. The terms are the same and that still creates the same issues especially if we get promoted
The FL are happy because whilst CCFC are playing at the Ricoh (it still has that name on it), in Coventry, then they can exercise their discretion on any 10 year rule. Sensible really given that relationships might be built over next couple of years
There have been "talks" at BPA but no one is close to making an agreement despite what I think were misleading headlines in both local newspapers. Over the last 3 years there seems to have been lots of talks that led to nothing but got everyone's hopes up, on the odd occasion anything was reported. There is no deal, or anything close to one at the BPA as it stands. CRFC nor its chairman don't even own the all the land or lease yet!
Sponsors for the stadium name are being discussed apparently, whilst a successful CCFC have an effect on that is CCFC signing a 2 year deal key to what could be a 10 year commitment by said sponsor? Or are we at a step to something else?
Still petty squabbles in the local rags - both of which pride themselves on getting the facts right and yet repeatedly make mistakes. Sorry but am tired of the one-upmanship going on
I actually like the calm level headed approach of Mr Andersen, bit wordy at times but hey who am I to talk. He now has time to get the decision right
Situation normal ............ I suggest we concentrate on the things we can have more faith in ....... TM and his team
Just my opinion of course
Last edited:
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
I agree there will always be someone wanting to pay for the sponsorship of the arena, as you said though, the question would be how much. I believe we are the major draw as the popularity of football still far outweighs Rugby. I imagine Ricoh paid what they did as they believed there was a chance of us becoming a premiership football club during the 10 year agreement and the exposure that comes with anything attached to that is enormous. I just cant see anybody willing to pay very much for the naming right of an arena that, in 2 years time, may just be for a rugby club that are seen on BT sport once every couple of months. As wasps have to raise this £2m a year plus any operating costs they have before break even they will be pretty anxious to get a deal tied down asap and that may mean agreeing something that is below the value of the Ricoh deal.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I keep asking but where are these suppressed stories? Since LR has been at the Observer I can't recall reading anything that hadn't already been printed in the CT either by him or by one of his former work mates. We're still waiting for the fabled smoking gun.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The story was that the council had decided to bail out ACL with public money.
At the time the CT was aware of it but sat on the story due to its cosy relationship with the council. Amazing really that a local paper would collude in such a way.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
btw CD - did you post this at 4am, or are you sipping cocktails on the beach in the Seychelles
Was 4am, watching the ice hockey which went to overtime and then a shoot out.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Reid was given the push when he wouldn't tow the line with the CT / CCC agreement to suppress stories. He took action against the CT and won.
Thought we weren't on anyone's radar?
How would you have seen suppressed stories? From what came out at the ethics meeting CCC and the CT agreed to suppress the story of the ACL bailout. You could definitely argue that had that been made public it would have been to the football clubs advantage.